Antimicrobial Resistance in the South-East Asia Region

Transcription

1 Situational Analysis on Antimicrobial Resistance in the South-East Asia Region Report 2016 Background 1

2

3 Situational Analysis on Antimicrobial Resistance in the South-East Asia Region Report 2016

4

5 CONTENTS List of acronyms 5 Foreword 7 Background 9 Global Action lan 11 High level of advocacy in High-level meeting on AMR 12 International meeting on combating AMR 12 Bi-regional technical consultation on AMR 12 South-East Asia Regional Committee Regional roadmap for strengthening national AMR prevention and containment programmes 14 hases of implementation 15 Resolutions and declarations 16 Methodology 17 Situation analysis to assess programmes for Containment of AMR: pre-requisite for development of the NA 17 Tool for situation analysis and monitoring of AMR in the 17 South-East Asia Region (in-country) Results 20 Overall findings from the situation analysis conducted in the Region with the tool developed by the Regional Office NA in line with the GA-AMR Awareness-raising National AMR surveillance system Rational use of antimicrobials and surveillance of use/sale (community-based) Infection prevention and control, and AMR stewardship programme Research and innovation One-Health engagement 24 Background 3

6 Global monitoring of country progress in addressing AMR using the global monitoring tool 26 Methodology limitations 28 Conclusions and the way forward 29 Annex I: Situation analysis tool (WHO Regional Office for South-East Asia) 33 Annex II: Country profiles 40 Bangladesh 40 Bhutan 43 India 46 Indonesia 49 Maldives 52 Myanmar 55 Nepal 58 Sri Lanka 61 Thailand 63 Timor-Leste 67 4 Situational Analysis on Antimicrobial Resistance in the South-East Asia Region

7 List of acronyms AMR : antimicrobial resistance AMS : AMR stewardship AMS : AMR stewardship programme AMU : antimicrobial use AI : active pharmaceutical ingredient DRA : drug regulatory authority EQA : external quality assessment HAI : health-care-associated infection IC : infection prevention and control OTC : over the counter GA : global action plan GA-AMR : global action plan for antimicrobial resistance GLASS : Global Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System EQA : external quality assessment FAO : Food and Agriculture Organization M&E : monitoring and evaluation NA : national action plan NA-AMR : national action plan for AMR NGO : Nongovernmental organization NRA : national regulatory authority OIE : World Organization for Animal Health R&D : research and development SEA : South-East Asia SDG : sustainable development goal SO : standard operating procedures UN : United Nations WCO : WHO Country Office WHA : World Health Assembly WHO : World Health Organization WRO : Western acific Regional Office List of acronyms 5

8

9 Foreword It is my pleasure to present the Report of Situational Analysis on Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR) in the South-East Asia Region. Building national capacity to prevent and combat AMR is one of the Region s Flagship riority Areas. We have made significant progress in this area. Since 2010 the South-East Asia Region has recognized antimicrobial resistance as a serious threat to public health. Regional Committee sessions and other high-level forums have adopted and issued several resolutions and declarations on its prevention and containment. Of note is resolution SEA/RC/63/R4 adopted at the Sixty-third session of the Regional Committee in Bangkok, Thailand, in 2010, and the Jaipur Declaration on Antimicrobial Resistance by the Health Ministers of the Region issued in At the global level, the Sixty-eighth World Health Assembly in May 2015 endorsed the Global Action lan (GA) on Antimicrobial Resistance. Countries committed to have in place by May 2017 national action plans (NA) that are aligned with the GA. Ten of the South-East Asia Region s 11 Member States now have a NA in place. This is vitally important. It is estimated that by 2050, ten million lives a year will be at risk from drug-resistant infections if preventive action is not taken. Given AMR s risk profile, the issue was taken up by the High-level anel at the UN General Assembly in September Earlier that year participants of the G20 Health Ministers Meeting and the G20 Heads of State Meeting expressed their support for action. This report is an account of the Region s progress in developing and implementing NAs. The report provides a platform to track what is going well, and to identify areas where extra efforts are needed. In the report, the regional roadmap for strengthening national AMR prevention and containment programmes is analysed with a specific methodology. The results gathered have been compiled to contribute to country profiles which make the report more useful. I thank staff in the ministries of health, and the WHO regional and country offices, for working together to compile the relevant data and information in a systematic and meaningful way. I am confident this report will pave the way for greater multisectoral support for future action aimed at preventing and combating AMR. oonam Khetraphal Singh Regional Director WHO South-East Asia Region Foreword 7

10

11 Background In September 2016, the United Nations recognized the global rise of AMR as a threat to global health and human development; however, the magnitude of the rise is still unclear. The problem is complicated to assess, as AMR corresponds to a range of combinations of clinical condition, antibiotic, etiological agent and location. It is estimated that if no proactive action is taken now to slow down the rise of AMR, then by 2050, 10 million lives a year and a cumulative US$ 100 trillion of economic output are at risk due to the rise in drug-resistant infections 1. A recent World Bank report on drug-resistant infections also states that the annual costs could be as large as those of the global financial crisis that started in Most of the direct and much of the indirect impacts of AMR will be felt in lowand middle-income countries. The WHO South-East Asia (SEA) Region has 11 Member States: Bangladesh, Bhutan, Democratic eople s Republic of Korea, India, Indonesia, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Timor-Leste. The majority of these countries are low- and middle-income countries. The burden of AMR in the SEA Region is high 3 and countries need to take immediate actions to contain AMR, and mitigate its economic and health costs. The WHO SEA Region has recognized AMR as a serious public health threat and, since 2010, adopted several Regional Committee resolutions on the prevention and containment of AMR. In 2011, the Regional Office organized a meeting in Jaipur, India wherein all health ministers of the Region committed to take intensive action by adopting the Jaipur Declaration on Antimicrobial Resistance 4. In 2014, AMR was included as a Regional Flagship riority by the Regional Director. The Regional Director called for building national capacity to combat AMR, with a focus on achieving clear deliverables at both the regional and country levels. 1 Review on antimicrobial resistance. Tackling drug resistant infections globally: final report and recommendations. Chaired by Jim O Neil. May 2016 ( accessed 2 July 2017). 2 Final report. Drug-resistant infections: a threat to our economic future. Washington, DC: The World Bank; September 2016 ( Resistant-Infections-Final-Report.pdf, accessed 2 July 2017). 3 Chereau F, Apotowski L, Tourdjman M, Vong S. Antibiotic resistance in SEA Region: Risk Assessment. British Medical Journal 2017 (publication in press). 4 Jaipur Declaration on Antimicrobial Resistance. New Delhi: World Health Organization Regional Office for South- East Asia; 2011 ( accessed 2 July 2017). Background 9

12 AMR poses a multidimensional challenge. It has social, economic and environmental dimensions that encompass the food production system as well as human and animal health. The One Health concept captures this scope, by recognizing the interdependence of human health, agriculture and animal health, and the environment. 5 The Sixty-eighth World Health Assembly of 2015 endorsed the Global Action lan to contain AMR based on the One Health approach, which is expected to translate into national action plans (NAs) by each country 6. All Member States agreed during the Health Assembly in 2015 to develop their NAs by May Resolution WHA Global action plan on antimicrobial resistance. In: 68th World Health Assembly, Geneva, May Resolution and decisions, annexes. Geneva: WHO; 2015 ( A68_R7-en.pdf, accessed 2 July 2017). 6 Global action plan on antimicrobial resistance. Geneva: WHO; 2015 ( publications/global-action-plan/en/, accessed 2 July 2017). 10 Situational Analysis on Antimicrobial Resistance in the South-East Asia Region

13 Global Action lan The global action plan (GA) on AMR, adopted at the World Health Assembly in 2015 by Member States, proposes a way forward. The GA was prepared by WHO with regular consultation with the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), as part of the tripartite collaboration to ensure a One Health approach for containment of AMR. The GA identifies five strategic objectives: 1. to improve awareness and understanding of AMR through effective communication, education and training; 2. to strengthen the knowledge and evidence base through surveillance and research; 3. to reduce the incidence of infection through effective sanitation, hygiene and infection prevention measures; 4. to optimize the use of antimicrobial medicines in human and animal health; 5. to develop the economic case for sustainable investment, which takes account of the needs of all countries, and to increase investment in new medicines, diagnostic tools, vaccines and other interventions. This action plan emphasizes the need for an effective One Health approach involving coordination among stakeholders in various areas, including human and veterinary medicine, agriculture, environment, food scientists, finance, well-informed consumers and the international sector. Governments of all Member States committed to have in place, by May 2017, a NA on AMR that is aligned with the GA. Global Action lan 11

14 High level of advocacy in 2016 The meeting emphasized the important role and the responsibilities of governments, as well as the roles of non- State actors, the private sector and relevant intergovernmental organizations, particularly the World Health Organization (WHO), FAO and OIE in establishing, implementing and sustaining a cooperative global, multisectoral and cross-sectoral approach. High-level meeting on AMR At the United Nations (UN) General Assembly in September 2016, the resident of the UN General Assembly convened a one-day high-level meeting at the UN Headquarters on AMR, with the participation of Member States, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), representatives of civil society, the private sector and academic institutions. The primary objective of the meeting was to summon and maintain strong national, regional and international political commitment in addressing AMR. The meeting emphasized the important role and the responsibilities of governments, as well as the roles of non- State actors, the private sector and relevant intergovernmental organizations, particularly the World Health Organization (WHO), FAO and OIE in establishing, implementing and sustaining a cooperative global, multisectoral and cross-sectoral approach. International meeting on Combating AMR The Government of India together with WHO South-East Asia (SEA) Regional Office organized a highlevel three-day international meeting on Combating Antimicrobial Resistance: ublic Health Challenge and riority, on February 2016 at New Delhi. Ministers of health from Member States and international experts attended the meeting. The Regional Director called for stronger commitment to building momentum within countries of the Region to reverse AMR. This high-level meeting helped in further getting the political commitment for multisectoral involvement in developing and implementing NAs. The meeting advocated for the development of NAs aligned with the GA, and would be owned across ministries by May A situation analysis to identify the challenges and needs would be conducted in each Member State of the South-East Asia Region before developing the NA. The NA should incorporate three essential components of the GA, including: (i) a comprehensive multisectoral approach; (ii) an operational plan with adequate budgeting; and (iii) an embedded monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system. Time frames on deliverables for implementing the NA will be adapted to each country s context and circumstances. Bi-regional technical consultation on AMR The second high-level meeting of two regions South-East Asia and Western acific, entitled Biregional Technical Consultation on Antimicrobial Resistance in Asia was held on April 2016 at Tokyo, Japan. The discussions 12 Situational Analysis on Antimicrobial Resistance in the South-East Asia Region

15 focused on moving forward with comprehensive policies and actions to implement NAs on AMR appropriate to each country context, and utilize opportunities for strengthened regional collaboration. This bi-regional Consultation on AMR mainly prioritized the roadmap for development of NAs and the associated AMR agenda in tandem with the UN sustainable development goals (SDGs). South-East Asia Regional Committee 2016 During the Regional Committee meeting held in Colombo, Sri Lanka on 5 9 September 2016, a high-level meeting with a special session on AMR was held. Member States committed again to developing NAs with WHO s support. Role and actions recommended for Member States (1) Continue the development of NAs aligned with the GA and its implementation to meet the May 2017 deadline for having such plans in place, participate in the situation analysis process and establish baseline data against which progress will be measured. (2) rovide inputs to the United Nations General Assembly olitical Declaration on AMR and support activities such as participating at the high-level session of the United Nations General Assembly. (3) Continue to support the development of multisectoral collaboration aimed at operationalizing the One Health approach. Role and actions for WHO (1) Continue to support situation analysis activities across the Region in line with efforts to develop NAs aligned with the GA. (2) rovide specific technical support needed in the areas of surveillance, laboratory capacity, human resources, and research and development (R&D). (3) Develop and implement a strategy on One Health for the Region aligned with the efforts already under way in several countries. (4) rovide information and facilitate support for efforts to further the global development and stewardship framework for antimicrobial medicines. High level of advocacy in

16 Regional roadmap for strengthening national AMR prevention and containment programmes The Regional Office developed a regional roadmap to guide Member States in developing their national AMR prevention and containment programmes and implement the NA. The roadmap proposed five phases of development, which are based on the activities and actions implemented as part of the NA. hase 1: phase of exploration and adoption hase 2: phase of programme installation hase 3: phase of initial implementation hase 4: phase of full operation hase 5: phase of sustainable operation. Figure 1: Roadmap for action on AMR Each of the five specific objectives of the GA and development of a GA-aligned NA is put under one of the five phases, depending upon the actions and activities implemented in each country. Fig. 1 describes the details of the five phases and activities of the roadmap for actions on AMR. HASE 1 HASE 3 Exploration and Adoption Implementation of AMR rogramme Initial Implementation rogramme Installation Identification of Needs Investing in Systems Development of Structure revention and Control Across Sectors Overcoming Challenges Allocation of Resources rogramme to Combat AMR HASE 2 14 Situational Analysis on Antimicrobial Resistance in the South-East Asia Region

17 hases of implementation hase 1: exploration and adoption The country initiates design of a programme to combat AMR, Activities to aid in its implementation may include: the identification of needs, options and resources; the identification of potential barriers; investment in systems; and/or the identification of structures (both in policy making and implementation frameworks). hase 2: programme installation The country decides to implement an AMR programme after completing a set of core activities. The country is focused on the development of structures and the allocation of resources to implement the AMR programme with the potential to scale nationally. hase 3: initial implementation The country initiates and implements an AMR prevention and control programme at the national level. During this phase, a functional model of the AMR programme is developed, but in limited scale. hase 4: full operation The country scales up to a successful model of an AMR programme that utilizes accepted prevention and control practices. Further, there is nationwide or large-scale adoption of the programme. There is evidence that the AMR programme is functional and regularly generates outcomes. hase 5: sustainable operation The country operates its AMR programme efficiently, and there is indication of programme sustainability. The programme is resilient to changes and other external factors. Through M&E mechanisms, there is systematic improvement of capacity. Indicators for programme effectiveness in human and animal sectors are developed, which may also be used to assess AMR resistance trends, antimicrobial use trends, and behaviour changes in the community and amongst practitioners. HASE 5 Large-scale Adoption rogramme Effectiveness Sustainable Operation Full Operation Successful Model AMR rogramme is Functional Resilient to Changes Monitoring and Evaluation Improvement of Capacity Behaviour Changes HASE 4 AMR rogramme Successful Background 15

18 Resolutions and declarations 2010: Regional Committee (RC) for SEAR endorses the Regional Strategy for revention and Containment of AMR in the Region [SEA/RC64/R5]. 2011: Jaipur Declaration SEAR Health Ministers adopt the Jaipur Declaration on AMR. 2014: AMR becomes one of seven key flagship priorities for the WHO-SEAR. 2015: World Health Assembly (WHA) adopts Resolution 68.7 to develop a GA to combat AMR. 2015: Regional Committee for SEAR reviews WHA Resolution 68.7 and Member States commit to implementing NAs in accordance with the GA and SEAR priorities [SEA/RC68/R3]. 2016: During the Combating AMR: ublic Health Challenge and riority conference in New Delhi in February, Member States outline a roadmap identifying key elements for converting the GA-AMR into NAs. 2016: Tokyo Communique Launch of Asia acific One Health Initiative on AMR reaffirms commitment to ending AMR and emphasizes a coordinated, multisectoral One Health approach. 2016: During the United Nations General Assembly, AMR High- Level Meeting, countries focus on mobilizing necessary technical and financial resources across sectors for implementation of the WHO GA on AMR by all countries. riority Areas Improving awareness and understanding of AMR Strengthening surveillance in human health, animal health and agriculture sectors Strengthening infection prevention and control (IC) practices in health-care facilities romoting rational use of antimicrobial across sectors romoting investments in AMR and related research 16 Situational Analysis on Antimicrobial Resistance in the South-East Asia Region

19 Methodology Situation analysis to assess programmes for containment of AMR: pre-requisite for development of the NA All Member States are expected to develop NAs based on the principles outlined in the GA by May There is wide variation across countries in the capacity to respond to the call to develop a comprehensive and holistic NA. Consequently, to tailor a NA to address the challenges in the setting of a particular Member State, it is essential to conduct a comprehensive situation analysis, which would inform the subsequent steps of the process. In response to the need to conduct such a situation analysis, the Regional Office has developed a tool to conduct a systemwide analysis of AMR prevention and containment programmes and their related activities. Tool for situation analysis and monitoring of AMR in the South-East Asia Region (in-country) The tool has indicators that are aligned with each focus (priority) area of the specific objectives of the GA. The tool evaluates the progress made in each of the Member States over five years ( ). Apart from being used to conduct a situation analysis in the country, this tool will be used for reporting on the development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the NA-AMR. The situation analysis can identify vulnerabilities in the system, and the stage of implementation of GA-AMR-related comprehensive activities, and assess the progress made over time. The tool has seven focus areas that are consistent with the five strategic objectives of the GA- AMR (Annex I). The seven focus areas are: 1. national AMR action plan; 2. awareness-raising; 3. national AMR surveillance system; 4. rational use of antimicrobials and surveillance of use/sale (community based); 5. infection prevention and control and AMR stewardship programme; 6. research and innovation ; and 7. One Health engagement. Each of the focus area indicators has a list of subcategory indicators (Annex 1). Each subcategory indicator is graded on five levels to show the incremental extent of implementation of the AMR programme. These five levels or phases are: hase 1: exploration and adoption; hase 2: programme installation; Methodology 17

20 hase 3: initial implementation; hase 4: full operation; hase 5: sustainable operation. The tool has details for each subfocus area of these five phases (Annex 1). The first phase of exploration and adoption indicates that the process of designing an AMR containment programme has been initiated. Once the decision to implement the programme has been made, systems progress to the second phase, that of programme installation. The third phase, of initial implementation, is one of the most challenging phases for programmes in developing countries. Once the early implementation barrier is overcome and the programme is scaled up, the fourth phase, full operation, is achieved. Once the programme starts to function at the highest grade of operational efficiency and sustainability, the fifth and final stage of sustainable operation is reached. hases 1 and 2 relate to policy development and planning but no implementation; phases 3 5 are related to different levels of implementation, including initial implementation, phase of full operation, and phase of sustainable operation. These phases from 3 to 5 are considered to be the strengths of the system. Sustainable operation is considered best practice and defined here as an operation that incorporates an M&E system, including analysis of the M&E and implementation of changes based on M&E findings. Assessment methodology using the tool The situation analysis is proposed to be performed by a joint team of the National AMR Control Committee members of the country, various stakeholders in the country for the five specific objectives of the GA/ NA, and officials/consultants from the SEA Regional Office and WHO Country Office. The role of the latter two stakeholders is to facilitate the process and reach a consensus regarding the findings. National stakeholders assess themselves and provide evidence and justification for their findings. WHO facilitates the process and helps in reaching a consensus regarding the grading through guided discussions. Core questions trigger the discussions on each focus area. The functional system is defined as a system that shows sound procedures, interdepartmental interactions, leadership, governance and funding capacity, and outputs. A thematic situation analysis is conducted based on the outcome of the multistakeholder review. A combination of the review for capacity and functionality describe at which stage the AMR containment programme is positioned in the country for each focus area. Using the tool and the methodology mentioned above, situation analyses were conducted in ten Member States of the SEA Region during May 2016 December The situation analysis in each Member State focused on how well developed the AMR programme was in terms of governance, policy and system. The review focused on broad system analysis rather than assessing the quality of policies and documents. The country profile of each Member State where situation analysis was conducted is shown in Annex II. The scores mentioned for each indicator of the seven focus areas are from 1 to 5, based on the level of development of the AMR programme. The situation analysis 18 Situational Analysis on Antimicrobial Resistance in the South-East Asia Region

21 for the AMR programme was conducted for each country using the tool as per the methodology. For seven Member States Bhutan, Bangladesh, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand and Timor- Leste in addition, a workshop was conducted at Bangkok and a consensus was reached for the grading in each focus area. All countries are continuously working on the development of NAs and activities are ongoing, hence each country is moving ahead with various activities under each indicator. The Regional Office is providing technical and other assistance to all Member States in finalizing the NA document and operation of the activities. Note: Data on DR Korea is not yet included as the arrangements for conducting the situation analysis in country were finalized only for August Methodology 19

22 Results The section below presents the overall findings for each focus area indicator with the subcategory indicators for the ten countries (Table 1-pg 31). lease note that these findings may not depict the situation at present, and the scoring may be different as countries are working on different activities for containment of AMR. Overall findings from the situation analysis conducted in the Region with the tool developed by the Regional Office 1. NA in line with the GA-AMR The first focus area has one subcategory indicator: (i) national AMR action plan. i. For the indicator on national AMR action plan, eight countries were in phase 2 (programme installation), indicating that each of these countries had established an AMR working group and a NA was under way. One country, Thailand, had a NA that was aligned with GA- AMR, including operational plan with defined activities (phase 3, initial implementation). However, one country was in phase 1; though the AMR committee was established but formalization/ endorsement of the members was pending. As a word of caution, the information reported here on the development of NA dates back to the time when the situation analysis was conducted in At that time, only one country had finalized its NA and a few countries had initiated its development. However, as of June 2017, all but one country in the Region have developed or are in the process of finalizing the NA for the containment of AMR. As part of the monitoring of progress to be conducted in 2018, the Regional Office will review all finalized NAs and their alignment with the GA. 2. Awareness-raising This focus area consists of two subindicators: (i) awareness campaigns for the public, and (ii) education and training strategies for professionals. i. For awareness campaigns for the public, seven countries had some government-led activities in parts of the country to raise awareness about AMR, and had conducted some actions to address the issue (phase 2, programme installation). However, three countries were in phase 3, that is initial implementation, wherein nationwide government-led antibiotic awareness campaigns had also been conducted. ii. The second subindicator is on education and training strategies for professionals; for this subindicator, there was no policy or strategy in four countries. They were in phase 1, pertaining to 20 Situational Analysis on Antimicrobial Resistance in the South-East Asia Region

23 exploration and adoption. In four other countries, relevant policies had been developed but not for all concerned professions, and ad-hoc training courses had been held for a few disciplines (phase 2, programme installation). Only Thailand and Indonesia were in phase 3 of initial implementation, where AMR was included in some pre-service training courses. 3. National AMR surveillance system For the third focus area, there are three subindicators: (i) national human AMR surveillance, (ii) national laboratory network strengthening, and (iii) early warning systems. i. For human AMR surveillance, all the countries except Timor-Leste had developed guidelines, though not all had fully implemented them and a few had limited quality data and analysis. Six countries were in phase 2 (programme installation). Three countries, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Thailand, had moved to phase 3 with standardized national AMR surveillance in place but of these three, two countries had a limited number of operational sites. ii. The second subindicator for this focus area is national laboratory network strengthening. For this indicator, Indonesia, Maldives and Timor-Leste were in phase 1 with no national laboratory network developed. Four countries had planned for a national laboratory network with testing according to international standards (phase 2), and two countries were in phase 3 (initial implementation), where a national reference laboratory had been identified and qualityassured laboratory networks developed at a few surveillance sites. Thailand had a national network of health laboratories with external quality assessment (EQA) developed in most surveillance sites (phase 4). iii. For the third subindicator of early warning systems, there was no system in place or planned at the time of conducting the situation analysis in six countries (phase 1). In Indonesia, this subindicator was not surveyed. Three countries, Bhutan, India and Nepal, were in phase 2 (programme installation), that is the system was planned in keeping with international standards but was still not implemented. Notably WHO is yet to define what the standards are regarding the objectives and modalities of an early warning system for AMR. 4. Rational use of antimicrobials and surveillance of use/sale (community-based) The fourth focus area indicator is rational use of antimicrobials and surveillance of use/sale in the community. This indicator has five subindicators: (i) a national AMR containment policy for control of human use of antimicrobials; AMR stewardship (AMS); (ii) national regulatory authority (NRA) or drug regulatory authority (DRA); (iii) surveillance of antimicrobial use and sales in humans; (iv) regulation of finished antibiotics and active pharmaceutical ingredients (AIs); (v) regulation of pharmacies on over-the-counter (OTC) sale and inappropriate sale of antibiotics and AIs. i. The first subindicator is national AMR containment policy and Results 21

24 AMS. Five countries mentioned that the AMS programme had been planned but was under development (phase 2), and three countries agreed that there was no/weak national policy for regulation of antimicrobial use and availability (phase 1). India and Indonesia mentioned that a national AMS programme had been developed (phase 3). In Indonesia, it was implemented by relevant institutions, and regulations for antimicrobial use and availability were implemented in a limited manner (phase 4). ii. The second subindicator is about the DRA. Timor-Leste was in phase 1 of exploration and adoption as the country has a DRA with limited capacity. In two countries, there were DRAs with limited capacity but strategic planning was in place for capacity-building and appropriate budgeting, that is phase 2 of programme installation. Three countries were in phase 3 of initial implementation, as they had mentioned that the system was set up for oversight but had not been fully implemented. India and Indonesia had functional DRAs with tools for quality assurance and registration of antibiotics. Inspection was also carried out but their capacity for enforcement of policies and regulations was limited (phase 4). Bhutan was the only country in phase 5, with a competent and functional DRA, with the capacity to ensure and enforce antibiotic quality standards. It could take measures against substandard products and inspect pharmacies. iii. The third subindicator is about surveillance of antimicrobial use and sales in humans. Three countries had no guidelines for surveillance of use/or sales of antimicrobials (phase 1); in four countries, the national policy and plan on surveillance of antimicrobials was under development or developed but not implemented, so they were in phase 2 of programme installation. Only three countries (India, Indonesia and Nepal) monitored antimicrobial use but this was limited to a few facilities that were not representative, and monitoring was done irregularly, that is initial implementation of the programme (phase 3). iv. The fourth subindicator is on regulation of finished antibiotic products and AIs. Six countries had regulation with limited capacity, but strategic planning was in place for capacitybuilding and appropriate budgeting (phase 2). One country, Bangladesh, had a regulatory authority and system set up for oversight with limited functional capacity (phase 3). Bhutan and India had regulatory authorities and systems in place, and conducted inspections but had limited capacity for enforcement of policies and regulations (phase 4). This indicator was introduced later after pilot phase and as such was not surveyed in Indonesia. v. The fifth subindicator is about regulation of pharmacies on OTC sales and inappropriate sale of antibiotics and AIs. One country (Timor-Leste) did not have any official regulation 22 Situational Analysis on Antimicrobial Resistance in the South-East Asia Region

25 on OTC sales and inappropriate sale of antibiotics (phase 1). Four countries had regulation with limited capacity but had strategic planning in place (phase 2). Bangladesh and Nepal were in phase 3 of initial implementation; a regulatory authority and system set up for oversight had limited functional capability. India had a regulatory authority and system in place, and conducted inspection but had limited capacity for enforcement of regulation (phase 4). Bhutan mentioned that the country has a regulatory authority and system in place and regulation is fully and effectively implemented (phase 5). This indicator was introduced later after pilot phase and as such was not surveyed in Indonesia. 5. Infection prevention and control, and AMR stewardship programme The fifth focus area indicator is about infection prevention and control (IC) and the AMR stewardship programme (AMS). It has four subindicators: (i) AMS in healthcare settings; (ii) IC programme in health-care settings; (iii) national health-care-associated infections (HAI) and related AMR surveillance; and (iv) sanitation, hygiene and vaccination. i. The first subindicator is on the AMS in health-care settings. Three countries had no national AMS or plan available or approved (phase 1). Four countries had a national IC/ AMR policy but weak standard operating procedures (SOs), and guidelines and protocols were not available in all hospitals (phase 2 of programme installation). Three countries (India, Indonesia and Thailand) had implemented policies in a limited number of health facilities, so these three countries were in phase 3. ii. The second subindicator under this focus area is on the IC programme in health-care settings. Two countries had no national IC policy, guidelines or action plans to mandate IC in health-care settings (phase 1). Three countries indicated that the IC programme and capacity-building programme were developed with SOs, guidelines and protocols but not implemented (phase 2). Five other countries were in phase 3 of initial implementation IC programme and capacity-building plans had been implemented in selected health-care settings. iii. The third subindicator for national HAI and related AMR surveillance showed that three countries had no policies or a limited plan and guidelines to mandate HAI surveillance in hospitals (phase 1). Five countries reported programme installation (phase 2), and that HAI surveillance had been started in few public and private facilities but data were not centralized at the national level. India had initiated surveillance in a few public and private facilities and data were shared at the national level (phase 3), while Bhutan mentioned that centralized data on HAI from several hospitals were collected but that data analysis and detection capacity was limited (phase 4). Results 23

26 iv. The fourth subindicator about sanitation, hygiene and vaccination showed countries at different levels, one country with no formal campaign (phase 1), and three with formal campaigns being developed (phase 2). Two countries had formal campaigns to enhance sanitation, hygiene and vaccination implemented on a small scale (phase 3), and two countries had implemented formal campaigns on a large scale (phase 4). One country, Bhutan, mentioned that a formal campaign had been implemented on a large scale with an M&E system (phase 5). In Indonesia, this indicator was not surveyed as at that time the tool did not have this subindicator. 6. Research and innovation The sixth focus area indicator on research and innovation has one subindicator (i) research and development (R&D) and innovation, including research funding for AMR prevention and containment. i. Five countries mentioned that there were no policies fostering a research environment, although a few countries had the capacity for research (phase 1). An equal number of countries mentioned that they had policies planned and the existing structural plan to foster research and innovation on AMR (phase 2). 7. One-Health engagement The seventh and the last focus area indicator is on One-Health engagement and has four subindicators: (i) a national AMR containment policy and regulatory framework for control of antibiotic use in animals, and registration for use; (ii) national surveillance for AMR, and use and sale of antimicrobials at the national level in the veterinary sector; (iii) IC in the animal sector; and (iv) AMR awareness generation and education in the animal sector. i. For the first subindicator, seven countries agreed that there was a national policy and plan with a regulatory framework for control of use in animals and registration for use, but the policy had still not been implemented (phase 2: programme installation). Sri Lanka was the only country in phase 3, where a policy and plan had been implemented but with limited capacity for monitoring the use and quality of the drugs. Two countries (Myanmar and Timor-Leste) mentioned that they had no national policy and plan to reduce the use of antibiotics in the animal sector (phase 1). ii. For the second subindicator, five countries had no or weak national policy in the country (phase 1 of exploration and adoption). Four countries had limited capacity for surveillance of sales, AMR and antimicrobial use (AMU), placing them in phase 2 of programme installation. One country (Maldives) mentioned that it had some capacity and data could be generated from sales for AMU (phase 3). iii. For the third subindicator, three countries mentioned that there was no policy and they had not developed national guidelines for biosecurity to reduce infection rates in food for both large and small scale producers 24 Situational Analysis on Antimicrobial Resistance in the South-East Asia Region

27 (phase 1). However, six countries mentioned that they had policies and national guidelines in line with international standards, including a vaccination policy and Codex Alimentarius standards, indicating that in these countries, programme installation had been done and they were in phase 2. One country (Indonesia) had limited implementation of the policy, particularly for large producers (phase 3). iv. For the fourth subindicator, six countries were in phase 1 as there were no policies or strategies for this programme. However, four countries mentioned that policies or strategies had been developed for awareness generation and education, but AMR and containment of AMR was still not included in education and training (phase 2). Results 25

28 Global monitoring of country progress in addressing AMR using the global monitoring tool This questionnaire collects information on country progress on AMR for inclusion in the report to the World Health Assembly and for global reporting to other organizations. Globally, WHO with FAO and OIE have developed a questionnaire to be administered to each country to review and summarize country progress on the development and implementation of a NA, which provides information for reporting at the global level 7. The questionnaire was sent to the ministries of health of all Member States via WHO country offices. The responses obtained by each Member State are the country self-assessment survey reports. It asked countries to assess their progress in multisectoral working on AMR, developing a national AMR action plan and implementing key actions to address AMR. The questionnaire is aligned with the specific objectives of the GA-AMR and includes questions on progress in human health, animal health, crop production, food safety and the environment. This questionnaire collects information on country progress on AMR for inclusion in the report to the World Health Assembly and for global reporting to other organizations. The country responses will also be used to guide follow-up actions and provide assistance and support. Global monitoring using this tool is to be repeated annually to show progress over time and identify areas for action. This questionnaire was sent to all eleven Member States of the SEA Region and all the eleven countries have responded. Both the tools, one developed by the Regional Office for the SEA Region and the other by WHO (with FAO and OIE) for global surveys, monitor the current situation and progress made over time by countries on development and implementation of a NA and its alignment with the GA-AMR. However, there are some differences in the details of the subindicators and in the assessment methodology between the two tools. The methodology followed for the global monitoring tool is selfassessment by the country to assess their progress in having a multisectoral working group on AMR. The Regional Office s tool, however, relies on a joint review of national programmes that is 7 FAO, OIE, WHO. Global monitoring of country progress on addressing antimicrobial resistance (AMR): country selfassessment questionnaire (version one). Geneva: WHO; 2016 ( accessed 3 July 2017). 26 Situational Analysis on Antimicrobial Resistance in the South-East Asia Region

29 inclusive of in-country stakeholders responsible for the five specific objectives, representatives from various professional associations and academicians, and an official/ consultant from the Regional Office and WHO country office (FAO partners will be requested to participate next year). The joint team is involved in a workshop. During the workshop, each subindicator is discussed by the entire group, facilitated by the WHO team, and a consensus is reached on scoring (grading) for each focus area indicator and subindicator through guided discussion. For each country, the situation analysis was done in their country and a separate workshop was conducted in Bangkok where seven countries presented the findings and jointly agreed to the score for each subindicator of the seven focus area indicators. There could be some differences in appreciation obtained by the two tools, as the Regional Office tool relies on consensual findings and discussions on feasible recommendations and potential support from WHO. The interactive session with a large group involving many stakeholders has advantages: (i) it emphasizes among multidisciplinary participants that they are all equally important and a comprehensive One Health approach is needed to contain AMR in their country; (ii) by highlighting the common challenges among various sectors (human and animal), it provides a sense of direction for building systems among all concerned groups and stakeholders; and (iii) the group recognized at what level their country was for all the seven focus area indicators, and that the cooperation of all stakeholders is needed to attain phase 5, a sustainable operation of national programmes, which requires funded programme operations, including an M&E mechanism for detecting, measuring and interpreting changes over a period of time. The tool developed by the Regional Office has an extensive set of subindicators under each focus area indicator. Some of the subindicators provide insight into comprehensive governance, policy and system analysis that can be applied at the community level as well as at the system level. For example, the focus area indicator National AMR surveillance system has national laboratory network strengthening and early warning systems. For the focus area on Rational use of antimicrobials and surveillance of use/sale, a few subindicators such as national AMR stewardship, national regulatory authority, and regulation of pharmacies on OTC and inappropriate sale of antibiotics and AIs are included. Similarly, for other focus area indicators on IC and AMS and One Health engagement a few additional subindicators are provided than in the global monitoring tool. The indicator for research and innovation is monitored by the Regional Office tool. On the other hand, the global monitoring tool measures the legislation and regulations to prevent contamination of the environment with antimicrobials, which is not included in the Regional Office tool. The latter can be adapted or altered to expand its scope and be more inclusive of our regional tripartite partners, that is FAO and OIE in the future. Global monitoring of country progress in addressing AMR using the global monitoring tool 27

30 Methodology limitations The methodology for using the tool developed by the Regional Office to conduct a situation analysis in a country on the NA-AMR has some limitations. First, the results are just a snapshot of the programme at the time of conducting the workshop; the status of each activity could be different or outdated after some time as the activities of AMR containment are dynamic and can and should change with time. These baseline analyses should be seen as the first of a long process of a WHO-led monitoring of NA alignment and implementation rather than a one-shot analysis. The tool s approach gives a chance for actors of the programmes to share their perceptions of the challenges and needs; discuss justifications of grading with external partners such as WHO and propose feasible recommendations. Second, the situation analysis focuses only on how well developed the AMR programme is in terms of governance, policy and system. The findings are based on a broad review of system functioning, structures and organizations rather than on an assessment of the quality of documents and direct observations of performance of the systems. erformance of the programme in terms of effectiveness of the interventions is of paramount importance and will complete the monitoring of NA implementation. WHO is currently developing performance indicators to measure the effectiveness or impact of interventions. 28 Situational Analysis on Antimicrobial Resistance in the South-East Asia Region

31 Conclusions and the way forward The growing global health threat of AMR has now shifted from a technical problem to a much higher level; it is a visible political issue that is increasingly being prioritized. All Member States of the SEA Region have adopted the One Health approach by forming a multisectoral coordination group that includes policy-makers, practitioners and professionals from diverse fields who can address various aspects of the AMR containment programme. Development of a NA: As of June 2017, all but one country in the Region have developed or are in the process of finalizing the NA for the containment of AMR. Of these, seven countries were willing to share publicly their NAs via WHO s online library 8. The last country that is yet to develop the NA will be initiating the process by August 2017 with WHO s technical support. Despite this achievement, countries acknowledged that challenges with respect to aligning their NA with the GA still remain. These challenges are as follows: Many NAs are solely endorsed by the Ministry of Health, although they recognize that AMR is a complex and multisectoral issue that will need a higher-level governance structure. It is presumed that the latter condition is needed to govern the multisectoral coordination group, which has members from many different sectors, including different ministries in addition to the Ministry of Health, and representatives from civil society and private industries. The situation analysis conducted revealed that the initiative for development of a NA has begun and the working group for combating AMR has representatives from different ministries in addition to the Ministry of Health, and representatives from other concerned stakeholders. Obtaining a complete and comprehensive operational plan with adequate budgeting will remain a challenge for years to come across the Region. One may reckon that the completeness of this criterion for GA alignment should be taken as providing a sense of direction rather than an ultimate goal. Measuring the progress of the operational plan implementation will be an important monitoring task for WHO. 8 Library of national action plans. In: World Health Organization: antimicrobial resistance (website) ( int/antimicrobial-resistance/national-action-plans/library/en/, accessed 3 July 2017). Conclusions and the way forward 29